> Ah yes, using the descriptions would avoid the need for extra > protocol changes. > > I'd suggest to use the keywords "skin", "tatoo", "underwear", > "shirt", "jacket", but also allow "shirt 2", "shirt 3", etc > to put things inbetween shirt and jacket.
Doesn't most of the confusion stem from the fact that clothing layers don't really map to clothing *items*? A full top would be undershirt/shirt plus underpants layer High-waist pants would be undershirt/shirt plus pants layer A catsuit would be undershirt/shirt plus underpants/pants plus socks If there's simply a new wearable type that includes all layers then most of the "being able to specify the order" goes away (aside from legacy items). If someone sells a full-top + high pants combination they wouldn't have to struggle with defining which shirt layer goes on top of which other one by messing with numbers - since those will still result in conflicts with what it's being worn in combination with - but you just leave it up to the user. If they want the bottom of the top tucked into the pants then they just arrange the top under the pants. Or vice versa. It also solves the issue where you're limited to what the creator felt like providing you with and working with clothing items is much more natural than working with clothing layers that only clumsily map to what they represent. --- Ideally there would just be a new "container" asset type where you simply group wearables or attachments together which makes things even easier still and would be usable with all existing content as well... Along those lines: I'm curious about the actual purpose of "ensembles"? I can make a few guesses from the code and it would seem to tie in somewhere along those lines but in a very limited way? (The "allowed" XML option is throwing me off :p) --- Kitty _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
